Ummm... indians of the *colonies* didn't live in the plains. :-)
But I should have been even more specific since my source really only
discusses land "transactions" in Massachusetts and perhaps Connecticut.
But I would expect it to be mostly true down the east coast. Indians
that lived near the coast moved seasonally between beach areas (for
fishing and shell fish), fire cleared lands (for agriculture) and more
forested areas (for hunting).
There are certainly many different indian cultures and land use patterns
but those early contacts with English colonists were as I described.
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/22/2010 10:25 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> And that was exacerbated by a huge cultural divide over use vs ownership
>> of land. Indians of the colonies planted the land but also moved with
>> the seasons since it was also necessary to them to hunt and fish in
>> different seasons and in places different from where they planted.
>
>
> That is not necessarily true. Only a few of them moved with the
> seasons and most of them were out in the plains. Movement usually
> meant running into other tribal groups and would result in conflicts.
> Indian mounds are evidence of stable and permanent populations.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|